Potential 2026 WC Hosts (Update: Morocco Sole Challenger to CONCACAF Bid)

This isn't helped by the fact that communication routes do not take into account anything other than cars. You can't really cycle around most American cities, unless you have a death wish or work as a courier. You can't really walk, because they don't even take into account pedestrians walking to their local store.

Enough b... about America.

 

I suggest we read all the bid books before discussions.
Now all bid books will be open to everybody, we'll see strengths and weknesses and the FACTS.
We'll also see how to overcome their challenges.
I see an important x-factor: how much will it cost to host a 48-teams FIFA World Cup and how much will it earn ?

 

Wouldn't that depend entirely on the country (e.g. some will need to construct several new stadiums from scratch, while others might have the infrastructure more or less in-place before even applying).

In any case, a 48-team WC obviously reduces the number of countries realistically able to host or co-host. I could see it becoming like the Olympics where the event just bounces between a small group of countries. I mean, the Olympics are going from S.Korea this year to Tokyo and then back to Beijing. After that it goes to Paris and LA - because those were the only 2 cities to apply for the 2024 and 2028 Olympics, respectively. lol

Similarly, the WC hosts would be essentially on a 28- or 32-year cycle.

 

On the Flip side:

Assuming the multi-countries Euro is a success in 2020 we could see the same applied for the World Cup on that continent and other continents. Which might make some people here complain about travel issues but I think it would be good for Footballing Nations with prestige that have never hosted World Cup matches to finally have their 15 minutes of fame while sharing the cost with others.

 

I think multi nation bids for a 48 team cup will be a regular feature. The CONCACAF 3 nation bid for 2026 will probably get up, mainly I think because its CONCACAF's turn and they have done the smart thing of including a nation that hasn't hosted before. Morocco would have a better chance down the track if they can include a couple of other North African nations in a future bid (Egypt, Tunisia and Algeria could all host some matches).

 

I agree. This why Infantino, who worked at UEFA during Platini's presidency, considered the United Bid sent a positive message. He's promoting joint bids which could reduce expenses for one country.

Morocco could also bid jointly with Spain and Portugal. It would make Morocco concentrate on renovating stadia at Marrakesh, Rabat, Fez, Agadir, Tangier and Casablanca. It could also build a 80,000 places stadium at Caablanca.

 

Not that FIFA or UEFA give a shit, but what I don't like about Euro 2020 is that numerous countries get home advantage. Imagine you're in a group of 4 teams and you have to play 2 away matches and one neutral venue match. That puts you at a pretty big disadvantage before a ball is even kicked!

 

I agree that Morocco's best bet is to partner up with a joint Iberian bid because that makes sense but since they are in another Confed I don't believe FIFA will allow it. Teaming up with Algeria and Tunisia could work as a joint North Africa bid. I don't know the political climate in those two countries or what relationship they have with Morocco but that seems like the more likely option.

 

I've an interesting idea to make the United 2026 bid more compact: clustering cities geographically. I also selected 16 host cities.

Proposed clusters
Atlantic division: Montreal, NY, Washington DC, Miami
Central division: Toronto, Chicago, Atlanta
Southwest division: Dallas, Houston, Mexico City, Guadalaraja, Monterrey
Pacific division: LA, SF, Vancouver, Seattle

Opening Game: Mexico City
Semi-finals: Atlanta, Washington DC
Final: NY

I'm open to any suggestion.

 

You left-out the round of 16 and quarter-finals.

Generally I agree with the principle of trying to reduce travel for teams, but the problem is that teams might choose their base before the WC draw is made. For e.g. England might choose a resort in Virginia to base their team, and then a few months later they get placed in the "pacific division"

 

I would advise teams to choose their base after the draw (which is 6 months beforehand).

I would keep teams in same region for round of 32 and round of 16.

 

hmm... yes! That would work. You can keep the 4 regions as the other poster had them for the R32 and R16.

But then (i.e. at the quarterfinal stage) you would have to re-define the regions otherwise you encounter the 2 problems that existed in WC 2002 (i.e. the 4 best teams in the world might all be stuck in the same division together creating imbalance, and you can encounter a team that you had in your group in the QF stage).

So even if you were in the Atlantic quadrant you could get moved to the west coast for your quarterfinal. (But then you could ensure that team would play at least 2 games on the west coast so they aren’t continually going back and forth).

IOW, you break-up the last eight teams into 2 regions:
West: Quarterfinalists #1-4
East: Quarterfinalists #5-8

With the winners of each region meeting in the WC final.

 

Or just accept that there might be more travel for the quarter finals and on. But no region names. Just regional scheduling.

 

L.A. City Council President:
L.A. won't bid on 2026 World Cup
http://lat.ms/2BhABfE
4:43:45 PM

so either New York or Chicago get the final

 

I think they will come to some sort of compromise in the Los Angeles area.

If not, then it may have to be NY/NJ since Chicago's stadium is too small

 

In his speech, Gulati showed 26 host cities. It seem six potential cities were not selected:

• Charlotte
• Detroit
• Las vegas
• Phoenix
• Salt Lake City
• Tampa

 

omitting las vegas is huge surprise for me, especially with all those hotel capacities and "additional arguments" they have

 

I agree, maybe heat even though they will play inside, they will practice outside. Probably the same reason Phoenix didn't make cut either. Off that topic but looking at the proposed stadiums only Azteca is larger than any of the American stadiums. Plus they left off 14 other NFL stadiums that are all similar size. Wild.

 

yepp, probably because of desert heat. or the cities simply did not approve/sign the FIFA contract

 

Maybe those are the reasons.
It could be also the simple fact that Vegas has never hosted any major futbol tournaments. Heck, they have never hosted any major professional (team) sports tournaments whatsoever. The biggest events they have hosted are what? Boxing? UFC? Some college basketball conference tournament games?

 

True but they aren't hosting the entire WC just a few game. They have a stop on the PGA Tour and a NASCAR track. Plus they now have an NHL team and will soon have an NFL team. In addition to being the home of UFC and many notable boxing matches. Vegas is no stranger to hosting sporting events.

Plus it's just a cool city to visit. I wonder if the gambling may be a factor as well.

 

That all might be true but it would be a bit odd to have the World Cup played in a city that has no futbol or FIFA connections at all.
No Gold Cup games, no Copa America games, no Word Cup qualifiers, not even an MLS franchise.

There are many other cities that are used to hosting such soccer events and have MLS connections.

 

lol True. Although I'm not sure LV would generate any more money for FIFA than some other US city. I mean, it is relatively tiny compared to most (all?) of the other candidate cities in the U.S.

Personally I'm not shedding major tears. LV is not that great if you're not that into gambling. Wander 100 meters off of the strip and its basically a dump.

 

When it comes to the US Bid it and their decision on cities has more to do with the US Soccer federation and their priorities.
Not FIFA's necessarily.